DataWorks MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '移动' (move) implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the move is reversible, what happens to dependencies, or what the expected outcome is. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While the description is technically concise (only 7 Chinese characters), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. A single phrase doesn't provide enough context for the tool's purpose or usage. The description fails to earn its place by providing meaningful guidance to an AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'moving a function' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from other move operations. Given the complexity of moving development functions and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more complete context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '移动数据开发函数路径' (Move data development function path) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'MoveFunction' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what type of function is being moved (UDF function), what resource it operates on, or how it differs from sibling tools like MoveNode, MoveResource, or MoveWorkflowDefinition. The purpose is vague and doesn't provide meaningful differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple 'Move' sibling tools (MoveNode, MoveResource, MoveWorkflowDefinition), but the description doesn't explain when to choose MoveFunction over these other options, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints for using this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.